throbber
Ibel'OH
`ooqoxm
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 121
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`reach
`
`the lungs to achieve the treatment goal
`
`that the Patton device is capable of being
`
`utilized to do that.
`
`BY MS.
`
`ASCARRUNZ:
`
`(Reporter Clarification.)
`
`Q.
`
`Earlier in your discussion of
`
`a POSA being motivated to modify the device
`
`used in Voswinckel, you referred to the
`
`Voswinckel Exhibit 1047 reference.
`
`Do you recall that discussion?
`
`A.
`
`I
`
`think I need to be reminded
`
`what the Voswinckel 1047 reference is.
`
`Q.
`
`Sometimes we refer to it as
`
`Voswinckel II, but it's the European Heart
`
`Journal.
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`Can I
`
`take a look at
`
`that reference?
`
`MR. MATHAS:
`
`1046?
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`abstract.
`
`Did I -- sorry, 1046.
`
`So it's European Heart Journal
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`
`
`A.
`Okay. Yes. All right.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page 121 of 201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 122
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`Q.
`
`So when I asked you about
`
`the
`
`motivation in Voswinckel
`
`to modify the device,
`
`you told -- you referred me to this other
`
`Voswinckel reference and said that it tells you
`
`that they are open to the opportunity of
`
`improvements or changes in a nebulizer to
`
`advantage some characteristics of those
`
`nebulizers for improved patient therapy.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you recall that testimony?
`
`Yes.
`
`What does this reference which
`
`I will start referring to as Voswinckel II just
`
`for clarity of the record, tell you about the
`
`willingness of the investigators to improve -—
`
`to make improvements or changes to the
`
`nebulizer?
`
`A.
`
`Well,
`
`the Voswinckel II
`
`abstract describes the use of an OptiNeb
`
`ultrasound nebulizer and a six-minute
`
`inhalation exposure, and the Voswinckel
`
`American Heart Association abstract describes
`
`using three single breaths from a pulsed
`
`OptiNeb ultrasonic nebulizer, and it was
`
`
`
`certainly very well known in the field for
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1220f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 123
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`nebulizer therapy that reducing the amount of
`
`time to achieve the dose needed for a patient
`
`was an important aspect of nebulizer therapy
`
`and patient adherence to nebulizer therapy.
`
`So moving from a six-minute
`
`nebulization to a three inhalation therapy
`
`whether that was accomplished exactly by a
`
`change in nebulizer or accomplished by other
`
`activities in addition was certainly something
`
`that Voswinckel demonstrates that groups were
`
`aware of and were in relatively similar
`
`timeframes evaluating the opportunity to use a
`
`device that provided a better user experience.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Now, you are aware that
`
`the single ground that the Board instituted for
`
`decision in this trial was the question --
`
`speaking just to the '240 patent, was limited
`
`to the question of obviousness over Voswinckel
`
`in view of Patton and Ghofrani, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`In the '240 patent, yes.
`
`But it's your opinion that in
`
`part a motivation to combine those references
`
`is evidenced by Voswinckel II, correct?
`
`
`
`I don't need Voswinckel
`No,
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1230f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 124
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`II, but you were asking directly about specific
`
`statements in Voswinckel I, and because it's an
`
`abstract, it's a very short description of work
`
`conducted and has often times very little
`
`description about what other information the
`
`authors are thinking, and so I
`
`look to other
`
`evidence even from the same group to
`
`demonstrate that, yes,
`
`those other -- those
`
`investigators were thinking about other things
`
`to improve this therapy beyond just the mere
`
`words that are included in the written
`
`description in the abstract.
`
`Voswinckel II to come to the —— to come to the
`
`And so I don't need to rely on
`
`opinions that I did in the matter of the '50?
`
`or
`
`'240 patents. Merely use that as an obvious
`
`example of even whether it's -- whether
`
`something is actually stated clearly in an
`
`abstract.
`
`It was clear that even that same
`
`research group understood that that was a
`
`consideration and a motivation.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`So because Voswinckel I
`
`is an abstract and it's a very short
`
`
`
`description of work conducted and has often
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page124of201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`CO~JO3UI
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 125
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`times very little description about what other
`
`information the authors are thinking, you
`
`looked to Voswinckel II to supplement that
`
`understanding, correct?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`No,
`
`that‘s not correct.
`
`I
`
`didn't need to look to Voswinckel II. We
`
`started discussing Voswinckel II because I was
`
`answering questions you were asking about
`
`specific statements included in the Voswinckel
`
`I abstract that would have described the
`
`author‘s thoughts, desires,
`
`I don't remember
`
`the wording about the nebulizer, and I provided
`
`you with actual evidence of what would be clear
`
`to a POSA that there -- that those
`
`investigators must have been thinking about
`
`issues regarding modifying the nebulizers being
`
`used because they demonstrated that they even
`
`did that in order to modify the dosing regimen
`
`that they used that was different between those
`
`two, but I don't need to rely on Voswinckel II
`
`for that.
`
`I was using that as an example to
`
`
`
`answer your questions.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1250f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 126
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Do you need to refer to
`
`Voswinckel II to understand the motivation of
`
`the Voswinckel I authors to modify the device
`
`disclosed therein?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`No. Again, a POSA understood
`
`that certainly at the time of the priority date
`
`of the ‘240 and the '50? patents it was well
`
`known that in evaluating human factors and
`
`improving the human interface with devices was
`
`an important
`
`thing to do in order to improve
`
`user -- improve the use of the device,
`
`improve
`
`the adherence to the design dosing strategies
`
`and so forth.
`
`It was -- POSA's were well
`
`aware of those issues and were motivated to try
`
`to find ways to improve devices to address
`
`human factors issues and improve patient
`
`interactions with devices.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Where in Voswinckel I
`
`
`
`is it said that three breaths are delivered in
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1260f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 127
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`less than six minutes?
`
`A.
`
`It doesn't -- let's see.
`
`Voswinckel
`
`I doesn't specifically indicate the
`
`timeframe over which the three breaths were
`
`taken, but a POSA reading this and, again, if
`
`it was -- if the occurrence or the
`
`description -- start over.
`
`If the methodology used by the
`
`investigators was going to differ significantly
`
`from what a reader of this abstract would be
`
`expected to understand,
`
`the authors typically
`
`make additional -- put in additional
`
`information into the abstract.
`
`So those
`
`methods are clear.
`
`So not having additional
`
`information indicates that a POSA is free to
`
`believe that this medication was dosed in the
`
`same way You would dose other medications with
`
`the OptiNeb ultrasound nebulizer which means
`
`three single breaths receiving the dose over a
`
`relatively short interval of time, certainly
`
`far less than six minutes.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. We were talking about
`
`
`
`paragraph 125, and the last sentence there you
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1270f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`CO~JO3UI
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 128
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`indicate:
`
`"A POSA would have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success with such a
`
`combination," which refers to the combination
`
`of Voswinckel and Patton, "because it simply
`
`seeks to improve upon the successful
`
`treatment
`
`already achieved."
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`I see that.
`
`Why would a POSA seek to
`
`improve a treatment that is already
`
`successful?
`
`A.
`
`Because while the treatment
`
`was therapeutically successful,
`
`the future of
`
`the treatment was having patients be able to
`
`use that treatment in -- and, you know, not
`
`have it be a lifestyle interference.
`
`So in
`
`addition to being able to demonstrate that it
`
`was a successful treatment in the acute study
`
`or even with the two patients who were using it
`
`for compassionate use,
`
`there's a -- there‘s a
`
`motivation to make improvements so that when
`
`that is sent out into patients using it in
`
`their homes and other situations,
`
`that again
`
`
`
`it's as easy as possible for them to adhere to
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1280f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`CO~JO3UI
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 129
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`the therapeutic regimen. And for the
`
`alterations to -- and the need to take Patton's
`
`teaching about an optical and sound based
`
`indicator and combine that, a POSA wouldn‘t --
`
`would have every expectation that that could be
`
`achieved.
`
`Q.
`
`You reviewed the file
`
`histories of both patents at issue, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I did quite a while ago, yes.
`
`Do you recall reviewing the
`
`declarations of -- of a Dr. Rubin?
`
`A.
`
`I -- only vaguely.
`
`I know I
`
`speak to it in my report, but I would need to
`
`see that declaration again to remind myself
`
`what it said.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you recall reviewing the
`
`declaration of a Dr. Zamanian?
`
`A.
`
`Again,
`
`I
`
`think I recall.
`
`I
`
`mean,
`
`I know there was something about material
`
`provided by Dr. Zamanian, but I don't recall in
`
`what aspects.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Do you recall reviewing
`
`a declaration of a Dr. Elder?
`
`
`
`It's been a
`I'm not sure.
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1290f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 130
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`very long time since I have looked at those
`
`file histories.
`
`Q.
`
`And you recalled that you may
`
`have discussed Dr. Rubin's declaration
`
`somewhere in your declaration, correct?
`
`A.
`
`I
`
`thought that I did. Yes,
`
`in
`
`paragraph 210 in the '240 declaration,
`
`I
`
`mention what I understood Dr. Rubin's
`
`declaration to communicate.
`
`Q.
`
`And what did you understand
`
`that to be?
`
`A.
`
`Well, Dr. Rubin was -- I
`
`think
`
`it's -- I can only summarize essentially what‘s
`
`in this paragraph.
`
`I think -— I am sure
`
`there's more in the declaration I should speak
`
`to.
`
`So I would like to review it briefly.
`
`Q.
`
`In the course of forming your
`
`opinions in this case, did you at any point
`
`form an opinion that Dr. Rubin's declaration
`
`and the file histories was not credible?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Again, it's been a long time
`
`
`
`since I have reviewed the file history or the
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1300f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 131
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`declarations.
`
`So I would need to refresh my
`
`memory about what that specific declaration
`
`said and whether there were other things I
`
`evaluated as I read that.
`
`BY MS . ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Well, certainly nowhere in
`
`your declaration did you articulate an opinion
`
`that Dr. Rubin is not credible, correct?
`
`A.
`
`No,
`
`I did not communicate that
`
`in my declaration.
`
`Q.
`
`Did you communicate anywhere
`
`in your declaration that Dr. Zamanian is not
`
`credible?
`
`A.
`
`I don't know that I recall
`
`that there‘s a description of Dr. Zamanian's
`
`declarations in this report.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Are you aware that both
`
`Drs. Rubin and Dr. Zamanian are medical doctors
`
`with an expertise in treating patients with
`
`pulmonary hypertension?
`
`A.
`
`I
`
`think people have told me
`
`that that‘s their background.
`
`Q.
`
`You don't claim to know more
`
`
`
`than Dr. Rubin or Dr. Zamanian regarding the
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1310f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 132
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`medical
`
`treatment of pulmonary hypertension,
`
`correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That's correct.
`
`And you don't claim to know
`
`more than Dr. Rubin or Dr. Zamanian regarding
`
`patient responses to the treatment of pulmonary
`
`hypertension with inhaled treprostinil,
`
`correct?
`
`A.
`
`Clinically observable patient
`
`responses?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`No,
`
`I don't know more than
`
`those two physicians, no.
`
`Q.
`
`You are aware that there's a
`
`consideration in this case as one of the
`
`objective indicia as to whether or not TYVASO
`
`is commercially successful, correct?
`
`A.
`
`I understand that that's
`
`certainly part of the case, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And you are aware that TYVASO
`
`has been sold on the market since its approval
`
`by the FDA, correct?
`
`A.
`
`That's -- I mean, that's my
`
`
`
`I haven't tracked any time that it
`assumption.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1320f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 133
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`had been in shortage or not available.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And you agree that the
`
`attributes of TYVASO that drive its sales
`
`include the frequency of its administration,
`
`its shorter duration of treatment time as
`
`compared to Ventavis, and its efficacy,
`
`correct?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Can you restate that question?
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Or at least reread it.
`
`Do you agree that the
`
`attributes of TYVASO that drive its sales
`
`include the frequency of its administration,
`
`its shorter duration treatment time as compared
`
`to Ventavis, and its efficacy?
`
`MR. MATHAS:
`
`Same objection.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Well,
`
`I understand that there
`
`are differences between TYVASO and other
`
`pulmonary inhalation products for pulmonary
`
`
`
`hypertension that allow TYVASO to have
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1330f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 134
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`administration characteristics that might be
`
`preferred by patient users.
`
`It is well known
`
`that treprostinil was particularly pulmonary
`
`selective.
`
`The half life of TYVASO provides
`
`or -- provides the opportunity to have a longer
`
`duration between administrations.
`
`The ability
`
`of -- to formulate TYVASO or treprostinil at a
`
`concentration that allows a reduced number of
`
`inhalations allow the product known as TYVASO
`
`to have the characteristics it has.
`
`Q.
`
`Let me ask you about paragraph
`
`213 of your
`
`'240 declaration.
`
`The first
`
`sentence of paragraph 213 you state:
`
`"I
`
`understand that the examiner rejected each and
`
`every one of these secondary consideration
`
`arguments, and I agree especially in light of
`
`the teachings of Voswinckel and Ghofrani."
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`I see that.
`
`And you don't cite any
`
`particular portion of the file history for that
`
`statement, correct?
`
`A.
`
`I didn't cite it in this
`
`
`
`particular paragraph, no.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1340f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 135
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`Q.
`
`Did you have in mind when you
`
`wrote this sentence where the examiner rejected
`
`each and every one of the patent owner's
`
`secondary consideration arguments?
`
`A.
`
`Again,
`
`I don't recall a
`
`specific section because, again, it's been a
`
`really long time since I
`
`looked at the file
`
`histories.
`
`I don't remember the sequence of
`
`rejections and responses and final
`
`determinations.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. But do you stand by the
`
`statement that the examiner rejected each and
`
`every one of the patent owner's secondary
`
`consideration arguments?
`
`A.
`
`In the absence of being able
`
`to review the file history, yes.
`
`I believe
`
`that my understanding of the record as I read
`
`it and wrote my report is that the examiner
`
`rejected each and every one of the secondary
`
`considerations arguments.
`
`Q.
`
`And do you know with respect
`
`to what claims the examiner rejected such
`
`arguments?
`
`
`
`I have no recollection on the
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page135of201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 136
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`details of the -- again,
`
`the rejections and the
`
`responses and the rejections and the responses
`
`that are part of the file histories.
`
`Q.
`
`You are obviously aware that
`
`some claims issued in both of the patents that
`
`are at issue in this case in the IPR
`
`proceedings, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Well,
`
`that there are claims
`
`issued for the '50? patent and the '240 patent.
`
`So, yes,
`
`some claims issued.
`
`Q.
`
`And that necessarily means the
`
`examiner found those claims to be non-obvious,
`
`correct?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Again,
`
`those claims issued,
`
`but exactly what the patent examiner evaluated,
`
`how they made their determination to issue
`
`those is beyond my ability to comment on.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`And that includes the
`
`examiner's opinions with respect to objective
`
`indicia, correct?
`
`
`
`Same objection.
`MR. MATHAS:
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1360f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 137
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`The claims issued. That's
`
`what I understand.
`
`BY MS . ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`I want to go back to Our
`
`discussion about the word pulsed, and before we
`
`do that, let's maybe set the context and have
`
`both of the two patents at issue in front of
`
`you.
`
`And looking to the '240
`
`patent -- the ‘240 patent, do you agree with me
`
`that a requirement of the claims includes the
`
`use of a quote "pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer"?
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`in both claim 1 -- claim
`
`1 in both the '240 and the '507 include the
`
`phrase pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer, and a POSA
`
`would understand that term to mean an
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer that's capable of
`
`delivering the aerosols in a pulsed manner.
`
`Q.
`
`So your understanding of the
`
`word pulsed in the context of the claims of
`
`both patents is that it is -- that the phrase
`
`pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer means an ultrasonic
`
`
`
`nebulizer that is capable of delivering the
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1370f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 138
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`aerosols in a pulsed manner, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Well, as I -- you know, as we
`
`read the remaining description about the pulsed
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer in claim 1, and I am
`
`looking at the '240 patent, it's requiring it
`
`to be able to deliver a fixed amount of
`
`treprostinil or pharmaceutically acceptable
`
`salt.
`
`30 that fixed amount indicates that it's
`
`being delivered as a pulse where there's a
`
`pause in time where there's not delivery
`
`happening.
`
`Q.
`
`In your reading of the claim,
`
`does it indicate how long that period of time
`
`is when there is a pause in time when there is
`
`not delivery happening?
`
`A.
`
`No,
`
`I don't read anything into
`
`the claim regarding the amount of -- the length
`
`of the time interval.
`
`Q.
`
`And there's nothing else in
`
`the claim that describes to you the length of
`
`the time interval?
`
`A.
`
`Well, later in the claim it
`
`describes the number of breaths that might be
`
`
`
`used to administer a particular mass of the
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1380f201
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 139
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`drug treprostinil, and depending on what
`
`sequence of breaths somebody wanted to take,
`
`that indicates a possible amount of time that
`
`the total administration might take, but
`
`there‘s nothing within the claim that describes
`
`the specific length of time of the pulse.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Focusing again on the
`
`use of the word pulse in the claims and not
`
`just speaking in the abstract general English
`
`terminology, but focusing on the use of the
`
`word pulsed in the claims,
`
`is it your opinion
`
`that an ultrasonic nebulizer with a constant
`
`output that has a switch you can use to turn
`
`the device on and off can be a pulsed
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer within the meaning of the
`
`claims?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`I believe that an ultrasonic
`
`nebulizer that‘s capable of administering a
`
`fixed amount of the drug and then not -- not
`
`continue to aerosolized cOuld be viewed as a
`
`pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer.
`
`
`
`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1390f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 140
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`BY MS.
`
`ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Is it your opinion that an
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer with a constant output
`
`that has a switch you can use to turn the
`
`device on and off can be a pulsed ultrasonic
`
`nebulizer within the meaning of the claims?
`
`MR. MATHAS:
`
`Same objection.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`That same -- if the turning
`
`the switch off can discontinue the aerosol
`
`production and then switching the —- switching
`
`the nebulizer back on in whatever timeframe it
`
`is that is desired or required that delivers
`
`two pulses or if you switch it off again, it
`
`will deliver —— and switch it back on again, it
`
`will deliver three pulses of the medication.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`And in that instance then that
`
`would fall within the meaning of pulsed
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer in the claims?
`
`A.
`
`Well, because it's
`
`aerosolizing a fixed amount of treprostinil,
`
`yes.
`
`
`
`Q.
`Is it your opinion that an
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1400f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 141
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer with a timed uninterrupted
`
`stream of aerosol that lasts for ten seconds is
`
`a pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`As long as the amount of
`
`aerosol is reproducible during the time that
`
`the aerosol is being produced and that there's
`
`a period of time where the aerosol is not being
`
`produced,
`
`that could be considered a pulsed
`
`delivery.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Can a pulse within the meaning
`
`of the claims last more than one breath?
`
`A.
`
`I don't see anything in the
`
`claims that indicates that there's a time
`
`duration requirement for the time between
`
`pulses.
`
`So there could be -- there could be
`
`other breaths between the breaths being used to
`
`inhale the aerosol.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`If a device has
`
`intermittent periods of aerosol generation and
`
`no aerosol generation, would this be pulsed
`
`
`
`according to your understanding of the use of
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page 141 of 201
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 142
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`the terminology in the claims?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Can you repeat that, please?
`
`Sure.
`
`If a device has
`
`intermittent periods of aerosol generation and
`
`no aerosol generation, would this be pulsed
`
`within the meaning of the claims?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`I
`
`am still confused.
`
`One more
`
`time.
`
`BY MS.
`
`ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Would it be considered pulsed
`
`within the meaning of the claims if a device
`
`were to have intermittent periods of aerosol
`
`generation and no aerosol generation?
`
`So it switches back and forth
`
`from aerosol generation, no aerosol generation,
`
`aerosol generation, no aerosol generation.
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Yes,
`
`I believe that is within
`
`the definition of pulsed delivery from an
`
`ultrasonic nebulizer.
`
`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1420f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 143
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`BY MS.
`
`ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`If a device is turned
`
`on to generate aerosol,
`
`turned off to cease the
`
`aerosol generation, put down, and then turned
`
`on again after a period of time to generate
`
`aerosol, would this be pulsed according to the
`
`meaning of the claims?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`It -- I would certainly
`
`consider it could be. There —— there are a
`
`number of different ways that someone might
`
`configure an ultrasonic nebulizer and a
`
`solution of drug and the need of a particular
`
`patient or group of patients or whatever that
`
`conceivably might include a longer non-aerosol
`
`generation period.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Are you familiar with the term
`
`breath actuated in the art of inhalation
`
`therapy?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I am.
`
`If a device generates
`
`
`
`aerosol -- okay.
`In a breath-actuated device
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1430f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 144
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`where the device delivers aerosol
`
`to the
`
`patient due to the patient's breathing -- I'm
`
`sorry. Let me start all over.
`
`Can a breath-actuated device
`
`be a pulsed device within the meaning of the
`
`claims?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`It depends.
`
`If that breath
`
`actuated device is capable of or is designed to
`
`deliver that fixed amount regardless of the
`
`other factors in the patient inhalation, yes,
`
`it could be considered if it uses ultrasonic --
`
`a pulsed ultrasonic device.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`And when you say regardless of
`
`the other factors in the patient inhalation,
`
`did you have specific factors in mind?
`
`A.
`
`That most obvious is for how
`
`long does the Patient inhale and how is the
`
`aerosol being formed during that time.
`
`Q.
`
`Is the inspiratory flow of the
`
`patient also a factor?
`
`
`
`That's very dependent on
`A.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page 144 of 201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 145
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`the --
`
`what's being emitted from the nebulizer
`
`whether the inspiratory flow add additional
`
`effects.
`
`Q.
`
`In your mind or in your
`
`opinion, does the requirement in the claims of
`
`a pulsed device require that the pulse equates
`
`to one breath?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`I
`
`think you could certainly
`
`be --
`
`there are -- would be circumstances
`
`where,
`
`yes, it could equate to one breath and
`
`each breath is a breath that is utilized to
`
`inhale the aerosol, and I
`
`think there could
`
`conceivably be breaths where they were part of
`
`the pause.
`
`BY MS.
`
`ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. And could there also
`
`conceivably be more than one breath per pulse?
`
`MR. MATHAS: Object to the form.
`
`BY THE
`
`WITNESS:
`
`A.
`
`Well, if the pulsed ultrasonic
`
`nebulizer was configured as a breath-actuated
`
`
`
`there could be the possibility, but,
`nebulizer,
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page145of201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 146
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN, Ph.D.
`
`again,
`
`there's some additional requirements
`
`that aren't really clearly specified in the
`
`claim so.
`
`BY MS. ASCARRUNZ:
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`If I were to take a
`
`sort of standard asthma inhaler and take a puff
`
`and then wait a few seconds and then take
`
`another puff,
`
`is that pulse delivery?
`
`A.
`
`Under sort of the POSA's
`
`understanding of pulse delivery versus multiple
`
`dose delivery, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Let me turn your attention to
`
`paragraphs 126 —- 126 of your
`
`'240
`
`declaration —— ‘50? declaration.
`
`Thank you.
`
`Do you see where you discuss
`
`that the primary purpose of using a pulsed
`
`nebulizer is to avoid wasting the drug that
`
`gets aerosolized while the patient is exhaling?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I see where it says that, yes.
`
`Is this the only possible
`
`purpose for using a pulsed nebulizer?
`
`A.
`
`There are probably others, but
`
`this again is one of the key purposes for
`
`
`
`designing pulsed nebulizers or nebulizers that
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldman Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1460f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`GDQGU'I
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 147
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`pause when the patient is not breathing and the
`
`aerosol that's being formed.
`
`Q.
`
`And how did you determine that
`
`this is the primary purpose?
`
`A.
`
`It's based on my experiences
`
`and teaching and understanding of the field of
`
`nebulized drug delivery.
`
`Q.
`
`Let me ask you to look at
`
`paragraphs 37 and 38.
`
`Do you consider the HaloLite‘s
`
`device to being a pulsed nebulizer?
`
`A.
`
`It's a breath—actuated or
`
`signaled-type nebulizer.
`
`I would have to look
`
`at the details I think again about the HaloLite
`
`to find out whether there's anything else
`
`beyond my description in this paragraph to make
`
`sure that it doesn't do something else that I
`
`wouldn't consider it being a pulsed nebulizer,
`
`but it has pause periods and periods that it
`
`produces aerosol or at least directs aerosol
`
`out the mouthpiece.
`
`Q.
`
`Unfortunately, we don't have
`
`this one printed so let me ask you to get out
`
`
`
`the two patents again.
`
`
`800-642-1099
`
`A Veritext Company
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`David Feldrnan Worldwide
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS, EX. 2034
`WATSON LABORATORIES v. UNITED THERAPEUTICS, |PR2017-01622
`
`Page1470f201
`
`

`

`Ibel'OH
`CO~JO3UI
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 148
`
`MAUREEN DONOVAN , Ph . D .
`
`Both patents contain a
`
`dependent claim limitation, and I will direct
`
`you to claim 4 of both patents where the single
`
`event dose produces a peak plasma concentration
`
`of treprostinil about 10 to 15 minutes after
`
`the single event dose, right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket